[EM] the 'who' and the 'what' - trying again

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:57:01 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
  > On 9/29/08, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
  >
  >
Quoting Michael Allan:
=================
  > We've coded something like that already, for a similar purpose.  I'm
  > not sure our voting mechanism always selects the Condorcet winner (?).
  > But is this roughly what you are thinking?
  >
  >   http://zelea.com/project/votorola/home.xht
  >
  > (The code is open source.  So the voting UI and count engine could be
  > modified to support any flavour of Condorcet.)
==================

When there is a CW, with no cycles, I claim there should be a
defensible claim that this is true Condorcet, including permission
for voters to do a write-in on the ballot.

When there is a cycle (3 or more in a near tie) there could be demos
of whatever resolution procedures please someone.

And, of course, the counting arrays must be correct and visible.

  >>its purpose is to encourage thought
  >>about Condorcet WITHOUT the thousand headaches that marriage would produce.
  >>It would likely do better as a phantom election than as a phantom primary.
  >
  >
  > It would be a real primary.  Also, as I said, depending on the rules,
  > maybe the State would help fund it.
  >
  > However, I guess for State funding, you need to meet some support
  > threshold first?
  >
I stay with phantoms - go for more and you never get past the headaches.

So I see no reason why this election has to be a primary.  Being a phantom
it could be either primary or general - general being closer to what you
seem to be thinking.

Being internet and of a votorola sort, outside aid such as state seems
non-essential - though always nice.
  >
  >> Permitting dropouts is less destructive than demanding unwilling
  >>participation.
  >
  >
  > You are just adding their name to the ballot.

You are measuring popularity.  While I think they SHOULD not choke, seems
safer to let any drop out without complaining.  With write-ins permitted
they can get voted for anyway (though not clear whether one ballot can
include more than one write-in - I think not).
  >
  >
  >> BTW - write-ins SHOULD be permitted, as would be in a proper election.
  >
  >
  > Ok, in fact, adding names could be described as an assistance for
  > voters who would have wrote them in.

NOT an assistance - simply normal voting.
  >
  > Also, if it is an internet poll, you could have a rule that popular
  > write-ins are added to the ballot on the fly.
  >
I think NO such modification to ballots - simply count as write-ins.
  >
  >> Tolerating and admitting, without attempts at cancellation of bias, sounds
  >>best to me - we are doing a demonstration rather than a true election.
  >
  >
  > Maybe give both results.
  >
No - see above.
  >
  >> Do need defense against one voter submitting multiple ballots - needs
  >>thought.
  >
  >
  > This is the bane of all internet polls.  The normal block is to allow
  > each IP to vote once.
  >
  > However, this doesn't really help as most home users don't have a fixed IP.
  >
  > You could try pre-registration.  If you had enough money, you could
  > send out invites to random people on the voting register.
  >
  > Once they are registered, you then have a set of people who are
  > verified and they could change their vote online at will.
  >
  > This gives you a continuous election during the entire campaign.
  >
So think, and do what is practical.
  >
  >>>The trick is to make it so that voters don't just see it as another poll.
  >>>
  >>
  >> We are getting voters to practice doing Condorcet voting - should matter
  >>little that the results are a poll rather than claiming the right to be
  >>counted as true electing.
  >
  >
  > Ok.
  >
  > However, if enough participate, the winner would be able to argue that
  > he is at least one of the top-2.  This is probably the second stage
  > and for it to work some participation bias elimination would be
  > needed.
  >
Cannot stop such, but dangerous to be seen encouraging it.
-- 
    davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
    Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.